I am trying to do my due diligence about this arm. I am just having a hard time getting my head around this idea of zero overhang and no offset. Does this arm really work the way it is reported to do?
Dear @intactaudio : I think that I did not explain very well on that " bs " about zenith and it's not that be not important the real issue is that no kind of alignment or underhung/overhung tonearm design are the culprit about but the cartridge manufacturer.
We have no single control of what a cartridge manufacturer does and if you buy a cartridge with a way off zenith then return to the manufacturer.
We can't try to " solve " all errors down there, it's if like if you found out a mistake in the LP recording: you can't fix it. The recprding proccess is out of your control same with any audio tem where something is " wrong " and if really is wrong responsability to fix it/support you is the manufacturer.
I can't fix all errors in cartridge/tonearm alignments because even I made time to time " errors/mistakes " about. What I try is to understand what is happening down there at the stylus tip and after that take care for the cartridge/tonearm alignment be as accurated as I can accurated as permit my knowledge levels and alignment tools and that's all.
So, zenith is not my responsability and if I really can't fix why to be anal about:
""" Incorrect Zenith Angle on Cartridges, or incorrect coil angle at the end of the cantilever.
Zenith angle refers to the angle in which the diamond is glued onto the cantilever. Sometimes it is not perfectly straight, it actually happens quite frequently. Or the coil at the end of the cartridge may not be mounted perpendicular to the stylus.
If there is an inherent imbalance with the cartridge or zenith angle errors it is a cartridge problem. ""
Löfgren, Baerwald, Stevenson and the like are away from that issue no matters what.
If you or other gentleman already have an algoritm to fix it then we need all to know it.
Referring to yourself in the third person is a bad sign. Why didn’t you just announce your superiority from the get-go? Would have curtailed the needless debates. This site might then have been renamed “Clearthinker Forum”.
You are quite correct that many people including a lot here allow their brains to fool them about what they are hearing. That is of course because their brains are far more complex than mere hearing machines and do not accurately report the sound they are listening to.
This is why I took the handle CLEARTHINKER in part in the hope of explaining this to those people.
I think I am pleased not quite to be a true audiophile within your definition. I changed my pre-amp and phono amp in 2020 and I sometimes buy a new cartridge (usually high-end Ortofon if something interesting is announced - must be flea-weight mass for the ultra lightweight Aeroarm). But my system is pretty much in a steady state now and I love it the way it is. Anyway, Clearthinker points out that technological changes are not always sound quality advances.
@rauliruegas, All I can say is that people are entitled to like what they want but then they are not true audiophiles. A true audiophile knows that technology advances and there is always better, more accurate sound around the corner. You have to wade through all the BS to get there, but that is life with humans. A true audiophile is never entirely happy with their system. The view this hobby as an evolutionary process. In our day audiophiles built their own equipment. Wait till you see the subwoofers I come up with!
News Flash, The Atlas Lambda SL has landed somewhere in the US. I will have it in a few days. It's New Cartridge Time! Break out the Champaign and the SmarTractor.
@intactaudio, Dave, JR is a pen pal. There is a new design for the stage of the WallyScope. I am in part responsible for the design change. I have the exact same microscope JR uses except it is on a laboratory grade stage which makes it easier to adjust. To look at zenith you need to put reference marks on the cartridge or whatever the cartridge is sitting on then you snap lines across the reference marks then on the long axis of the stylus. The program then automatically calculates the angle. In all my cartridges that is Zero degrees +- a few minutes.
I am not your usual casual audiophile. I was in the business for a decade and I am a technocrat and tool collector. If it can be done I can usually do it, in analog fashion anyway. I do not have any CNC equipment because I do not make production runs. All my furnisher are one offs. I have way more capability than JR ever dreamed of. I will put a picture of the SteinScope on my system page so you can see if you can figure out how I made it.
@clearthinker, Thanx for doing the calculation. I'm lazy. IMHO VTA towers are a complete waste of money. A scale on the tonearm's barrel is a very useful touch. It is always nice to have repeatable measurements. The real riot is that people will say up is brighter down is duller (I may have that reversed). As the stylus tilts off the axis of the cutter head in either direction the contact line can no longer fit into the smallest modulations, this high frequency ones. Moving the tonearm up or down creates a mechanical low pass filter. You loose the high frequencies in either direction. This is a great example of people letting their brains fool them.
Neon, I would check with Expert Stylus in the UK. They seem to source Ortofon related parts , or suitable replacements. I gather you think the OEM cantilever is not salvageable.
@neonknight Thanks for mentioning the Dynavector DV505. That seems like it could be the perfect solution for my situation in that it’s a flush-mount and doesn’t require a massive hole to be drilled in my plinth. I’ve ordered one. It’s a bit of a fiddly arm, but the Rigid Float is just as fiddly if not moreso. From my limited use, there always seems to be a feeling of there being some slop, e.g. if I pull the cartridge out and put it back in, I feel like the azimuth shifts slightly.The VTA adjustment is kind of a pain, too.
I’m not sure how the unique Dynavector design will track 78s--hopefully a slightly heavier headshell will have enough effective mass to track my lower-compliance cantilevers with higher tracking forces properly without resonances. Overall it seems a lot more scientifically-grounded than the Rigid Float.
@mijostyn You mention the unnecessary obsession with VTA. I agree with you. You guess the error from playing a 130gm LP on a setting for 200gm at 'a few minutes maybe'. I have done the calculation, assuming a 9 inch arm and a 1mm thickness difference (I haven't measured, but it's no more than that). The answer is 1.8 minutes, so even less than your guess. That cannot be heard.
My Simon Yorke Aeroarm has a dial for adjusting arm height on the fly. There is a big stiff round knob. I could measure the angular turn for say 0.1mm of change, mark a reference point adjacent to the knob, and set absolutely for each disc, having measured the thickness in the playing area with a caliper (carefully!) and written that dimension on the inner sleeve.
But I don't. If Michael Fremer still used Simon Yorke equipment he would surely do it, and have a very nice record player as well.
@lewm the issue is there is not a tapered aluminum cantilever available to replace a damaged OEM one. Not through any cartridge builder that I am aware of. I wondered if the one fitted to an Ortofon Cadenza Bronze could be a possibility, but you cannot source one.
When this first occurred I didn't touch an album for 4 or 5 months. I was really quite upset with myself. Only after I was able to contact @nandric and buy his MC2000 was all right in the world again. Then I had a reason to consider a repair of the first cartridge. This way I had an OEM version to appreciate, and still have an alternative to use for casual listening. Now if I could have found a suitable replacement I would use it in a heartbeat. But I do not know of one.
Neon, Based on the post by J Carr in which he discussed various cantilever materials and also expressed the opinion that in retipping or restoring a cartridge, one might be best off sticking to the original chosen cantilever material, on the premise that the cartridge was designed and voiced with that material, I would choose to stick with aluminum if replacing the cantilever on an MC2000. On the same grounds, better yet would be to re-tip the original aluminum cantilever. Now I do respect Raul's opinions, and he did say that he likes the boron cantilever on his MC2000, or what once was his MC2000. But we also know what Raul and Mijo think about the phrase "I like it" when other people use it.
There seems there’s much for me to learn with cartridge behavior regarding the hierarchy of TAE: zenith, over/under-hang geometry and anti-skate - including potentials with different profile styli.
Or, instead of concentrating on stylus tracking angle error, maybe a little thought into motor stability theory is in order?
In my way of thinking, there’s something seriously going on with lateral movement or stability that needs to be addressed.
Validity lies in the sonic experience which no doubt is extremely positive by every firsthand account.
As typically understood, correlation of numerical data does not always explain what sounds good.
The issue of zeniyh is almost bs because we all know that if exist something imperfect in the whole anolog subject is exactly ANALOG and what surrounded it.
How can you say the above and then go on about TAE of the rigid float arm??? As Lew pointed out the tolerance specification from Orbray and Fgyger is ±5° and just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean it is not a huge problem.
Lew asked you if you paid attention to Zenith and you assured him you set the SRA with the nicest tools on the planet without answering his question about the zenith accuracy of your carts. You could send them to @wallytoolsand have JR take a look at it for you.
@lewm It is true I look at things from varying angles, working to understand the variables and a proper implementation. With the MC2000 a bit more so, as there are getting to be less and less of them, and because I unfortunately am responsible for one less stock one. But I will say @rauliruegas experience regarding using a boron cantilever on a damaged MC2000 is a viable option. I will also say I feel the same about you regarding the DV505, and the use of the light Denon headshell and the smaller Dynavector counterweight makes me far more comfortable running the MC2000 on a DV505. I am content with the pairing. Wish I did have a cue device and the associated cue platform, would have protected against the event that did in that first MC2000.
I don't maintain a large collection of analog gear, I am content with my 6 cartridges, and three arms. The Dynavector allows me to run 3 casual cartridges, the boron MC2000/MC3000 II/MC5000 and that is enough for casual vinyl spinning for a long time. Truth is digital sounds really nice here and I can easily use it for casual listening also.
Hopefully the final tidbits allows me to fine tune the set up of the BMC phono stage, which I do see as quite attainable. With that I am set with my analog rigs and am content. I feel fortunate to have nice examples of the T2000 and T5000 SUT devices, and am happily surprised how well the Esoteric phono stage functions.
Neon, as I mentioned to you earlier, you need not worry about effective mass with either the DV505 or the Viv, but it seems you do enjoy the fretting. I run my MC2000 in my Triplanar with no problems at all . Of course, that judgement is made by my ear; I haven’t measured the resonant frequency. In my opinion, the commonly used equation for calculating resonant frequency based on cartridge compliance and tonearm effective mass can only get you a ballpark figure for Fr. This is because none of us know the actual effective mass of our tonearms, exactly, and we do not know the compliance of one particular sample of a cartridge. I am convinced that manufacturing tolerances are such that the rigid compliance number usually supplied is only that of an average sample. Furthermore, once a cartridge has aged, whether in use or sitting on a shelf, it is quite likely that the compliance has changed from day one of its life. The Triplanar is said to have an effective mass of about 11 g. That number is a little more reliable than most, because the Triplanar has a non-detachable headshell. Once you mix and match tonearms with headshells, it is very easy to lose track of the correct tonearm effective mass. Your Dyna vector DV505 has a remarkably low effective mass in the vertical plane which is well suited to the MC2000. I know you are worried about effective mass in the horizontal plane. You shouldn’t be. I also ran the MC 2000 in my DV505 for several months. The performance was equally good to that of the Triplanar. In fact, the very low bass response might have been more articulate in the DV 505.
Enjoyment of Music is enjoyment of Sound made by Humans.
Sound made by Humans is present as a form of entertainment, the sole purpose being to function as a stimulus for the bodies auditory perception and the ability to be able to hear sound, is able to create a certain type of stimulus within an individual.
It can be safely said, that not all sound produced for entertainment purposes arouses equal stimulus in all individuals.
It can be safely said, that when a sound that is produced for the purposes of entertainment is discovered by an individual and proves to be to their taste and preferences, the enjoyment being experienced is most likely to be of a equal measure to what others are experiencing in relation to their chosen and preferred sound being produced.
It does not matter what is attached to the Stimulus, be it distortion or non-distortion, a Mother listening to a child play a instrument after a short period of learning, will convince herself the music is wonderful. When listening to sound for the purpose of entertainment, there is no right or wrong, the music is either and attraction or not.
What ever music type, that has created attraction and proved to be entertaining and is wanted to be maintained, is all that matters.
To try and attach more to it is unnecessary, to suggest a particular method is needed to experience the music is not really going to win too much favour.
To suggest a Tool used to replay recorded music can only offer the best form of entertainment, if it is produced to function within a certain parameter is silliness.
To suggest that a Tool used that is not functioning to within a certain parameters, is not able to be entertaining and should be discarded and not maintained is a crazy notion.
Most Tools designed are very successful, and the role of the Tool is proven adequately fit for purpose. Recorded Music is successfully replayed as the result.
Spend as much time as one wants arguing the toss with others about decisions made. It wont change anything, especially when the made decision has proved to put an emphasis on the quality of entertainment being created, being for the better.
Dear @mijostyn : As you I posted several times that our ears are extremely limited tools/mechanism when the brain is a total different matters.
The subjectivist, at least gentlemans as alan, are " closed mind " and almost always are entitled to that " stupid " ( no ofense to any one. ),: " I like it " that came from several years now thanks to some old reveiewers and audio distributors telling us: " trust your ears ".
Well I posted several times this information and I do it again because always there is something to learn about:
The issue of zeniyh is almost bs because we all know that if exist something imperfect in the whole anolog subject is exactly ANALOG and what surrounded it. As you I'm not looking for " perfection " because is a losted war just before to start with.
Yes, accuracy is the name of the game in any room/system and the subjectivist want prove it with that : " I like it ".
My take is that we have to mantain a " healty " equilibrium between subjectivity and objectivity. Normally the extremes is futile/useless.
Subjectivitist thing that audiophiles as you , me and several others are just stupid non open mind people that can't understand: " I like it ".
@alan60 I'm using bluetack. I might try double sided tape. Thanks for the suggestion.
@clearthinker Yes there's always room for improvement. For example I've made a "hat" to cover the top of the arm base and prevent room dust from accumulating on the tonearm bearing assembly since it is not enclosed. Always chasing some sort of dragon in this hobby.
My interest in the arm was as a possibility to use my MC2000 cartridge. I have never been able to get an answer of arm mass from anywhere online. I did email the company and no response. So I think i am going to end this line of pursuit. I am fine with my other tonearms and have obtained a Denon PL5 headshell for the MC2000 to be used on a Dynavector DV505. The combination works well, so that is my solution for now.
When the equipment is the obsession, and not just a Tool to be used as a means to an end.
The type of personality that encloses itself in, and can't see the end, but only the tools, and technicalities. This type in my experiences with them, has a dysfunction. The obsessing over Microns and Seconds and Radians and what is at a loss if not present in a set up is futile.
Most of what is required, is already put in place and readily available to be utilised with considerable ease.
Tonearm Set Up Dimensions are Found on a Template - The Cartridge Groove Modulation Tracing Geometry is to be found on a Protractor.
There are plenty of solutions to produce accurate speed control.
There is no shortage of ancillaries to get a Tracking Weight and Tracking Angle set in place.
The Math behind it does not matter, as there are clever types who made it, that the required tasks were simplified, being easily achieved by most with a little practice and tuition. Produced designs that are readily available for the above tools, do make life uncomplicated. It is not a Black Art, where caution is needed.
From a certain point of observing, the pursuit of more accuracy than readily available becomes burdening. Specialised Methods with Specialised Equipment is required, and the end product produced, is one that is, as a end product, in a constant state of deterioration, where it is extremely difficult to be continuously reassured the controls put in place are maintained. Even a simple shift in temperature could change the work being meticulously measured to perform a function.
I am quite sure, there are go to devices produced using general production methods that can not be produced with a consistency, where the parts assembled are all equal. Tolerances for a Part will vary.
It is difficult to see how variances of a Tolerance will receive any further benefits from going above and beyond the most regularly used methodologies to create interfaces and a functioning environment.
The costs associated with producing the tightest of tolerances and having a friction free environment is an extremely expensive endeavour. The Works required to create the tolerances and lowest coefficients of friction without a Lubricant used, is certainly one that is a 'Hands On', Labour Intensive Operation, which will be a design produced from the most skilled hands.
Take a Branded Product, if there was a product that could adopt a design that has a extremely tight tolerance and the Skill Set was in house to produce the extremely tolerance at interfaces, it would be a service that provided a end product that is most likely as the minimum 25% increase in costs, even getting onto 50% above a typical charge. If the service is outsourced the associated costs will certainly come in close to a 50%+ uplift in retail value. Start adding these costs to devices in the $4000 - $15000 price ranges seen at present, and a Customer Base will be quickly lost.
I have a hand honed Bearing assembly in my Tonearm, which is produced to the tightest of Tolerances and is friction free, the Platter Spindle Bearing is also modified and produced to work with the Tonearm Bearing, for the most valuable of interfaces.
Along with the above Two Specially produced conditions, the Speed Control of the TT is also a much improved design.
The weak link is when the Cart' is added. The Cart' is not produced with the tolerances needed for the assembly, that will enable the other devices to completely excel.
The usual outcome is that the Cart' being used are showing traits, not usually detected, and recognised as a betterment, which is attributed as a result of the tolerances produced for other parts used in the environment of operation.
I tend to side with mijostyn and the 'audio science' side of the debate. In general, I'm curious as to how much of the 'science' side of the debate is truly measurable. Computerized measuring apps have come a long way recently, as has high-resolution spectral display. I'd like to see an arm like the Viv A/B'd against an 'idealized' analog setup or a pure digital source. If the inner groove TAE is truly significant, you could probably even see the distortion on a spectral display in addition to on an oscilliscope. It sounds like the measurements are small enough that it would be extremely dependent on the tight control of everything else measurable.
That said, as I've mentioned, I'm probably going to use the Viv as my secondary arm for 78 RPM sources because it fits on my plinth without having to spend thousands more on an upgraded dual-armed plinth or screw around with my workflow by swapping armboards every time I change cartridges. 2-channel tools can fix the phase errors. I mostly transfer 10" records, too, so I can set the null point to be optimized for 10" records rather than 12" records.
I love how some anoint themselves as God of all things analog and keeper of how all music must sound. So glad that we get to chose different interpretations and not have to rely on a solo source to experience the beauty of this hobby. A world with only one conductor is devoid of color and shading.
@lewm, come on Lew you ought to know better than that. None of my cartridges has a significant zenith error. Every last one was fully examine and carefully set up with a very high power USB microscope, and not one of those cheap $60 ones either. Getting to the proper 92 degree VTA can be tricky with asymmetric styluses like the Replicant 100 and Gyger S. It helps to be able to see it in technicolor. I can snap lines and the program will automatically compute the angle. I set it on a 180 gm record. The amount of error going to 200 or down to 130 is miniscule, a few minutes maybe, Fortunately, The Schroder CB has a fine scale on it's post so once I have it set up I can return to the setting for any of my cartridges instantly without having to set up the microscope. Time to go skiing.
" This seems advantageous to me because the largest source of vibrations is probably my turntable itself since it contains a heavy spinning platter as well as a motor."
Keeping the armbase off the turntable won't solve your perceived problems. The stylus will pick up all the vibration of which you speak. I'm not well up on Lenco, but my father had one and it was idler wheel driven - do they have new models, are they still trading? Anyhow, if your turntable is really this bad, you need to upgrade.
@gzmI appreciate you like the flexibility of the Viv being free standing, what I found is that by securing it to the surface where it is mounted with a couple of pieces of double sided sticky tape wrought benefits. I suppose you could also use very very thin slithers of blue tack. Worth a try if you haven't already.
@kennycyou still haven't scratched the itch with the Viv yet.
Mijostyn, are you paying attention? Zenith. Most likely none of your cartridges is properly aligned due to zenith errors. Which means you’re in no position to preach about TAE. The ancient alignment gods, Lofgren and Baerwald, didn’t have to think about zenith because all styli were conical in 1940, not to mention most turntables were wind-up powered and depended upon acoustic amplification.
@intactaudio, Not true. We also have our brains to judge designs by established criteria. Most of us refuse to use our ears constructively. Listening back and forth to two samples makes it easy to pick out the winner. ABing equipment is the single best way to determine what actually sounds better. Our brains and ears are not wired to do this in isolation. Anybody who thinks they can is more likely than not to have an unsatisfactory system. Remember the first time you sat in front of a real SOTA system. I do and my jaw must have dropped three feet. Most people have never heard that system and are out to sea without a compass. @mckinneymike, I could care less what sounds satisfy you. Chances are you have no idea what you are listening to other than it pleases you. I am after accuracy and I know for an absolute fact that paying close attention to manageable and programmable factors leads to the kind of sound that drops peoples jaws. A good example of this is the equality of both channels. In order to produce the most accurate image the two channels have to have identical frequency response curves and no group delays. Two identical speakers placed in different locations will have significantly different response curves blurring the image. Same for group delays and phase issues. All this can be easily measured and remedied. Who here has the facility do do this besides me??
There seems to be any logical arguments why the ViV shouldn’t sound good. Mostly/all from those who have not tried it or even heard it.
On the other hand, there’s a lot of very positive empirical reports from actual users. I’ll likely purchase a ViV to accompany my 4point, Schroeder CB-L, and my Schick (for SPUs) to try out. Maybe this arm may scratch my linear tracker itch for lower noticeable distortion at the end of records especially for orchestra finishes.
I have had the 13" carbon fibre arm paired with a VAS cartridge and Lenco (on a slate/aluminum composite plinth) for a short time now and the resulting sound is the best I've heard from my system.
It's not a perfect system and there's always room for improvement but I greatly appreciate the Viv Lab for several reasons.
It sounds very good, from the first to the last track. I won't even try to come up with an explanation. Not my job to know why. My job is to enjoy the music.
Arm set-up is simple. I don't think this can be said for many (or perhaps any) sophisticated tonearms. Try it at a dealer: bring your own cartridge, mount it, and see for yourself.
Mine is mounted off the plinth and sits on a large slab of metal. This seems advantageous to me because the largest source of vibrations is probably my turntable itself since it contains a heavy spinning platter as well as a motor. There are 3 threaded holes at the bottom of the armbase so I'm certain one could attach it to the plinth with some careful measurement and drilling. But I would not do this since the arm's mobility allows one to move it to a second or third deck. It also allows different cartridge to be installed and positioned easily. So I applaud Viv Lab for bringing to market this arm that lets the user move it easily. One arm may serve multiple decks. And with the detachable headshell, swapping cartridges and re-positioning the arm has become a simpler chore.
I also appreciate the magnetized oil used in the bearing reservoir. It's a brilliant material application, and its implementation is again simple. It's nice too that carbon fiber is an option.
I welcome this change from convention. I'm glad to have bought the arm sight unseen (and unheard) and I truly think it's a gamble that's paying off with every single record I play.
So I suppose that the traditionalists all use 12-inch tonearms, to minimize TAE as much as possible with a pivoted tonearm, and that they are aware of the effect of zenith errors on perfect alignment. Which is to say that zenith errors, which are tolerated by the manufacturers up to +/-5 degrees, if ignored, will totally destroy any attempt at perfect alignment, using any of the traditional algorithms. Unless you have accounted for that error, you are totally kidding yourself if you think you know your cartridge is perfectly aligned.
Dear @alan60 : At least read and understand what I posted to you:
""
I know that you and other VIV owners are really happy and I’m not against you. .
Yes, our hobby is about MUSIC enjoyment but exist a quality gradation for that enjoyment . "
You posted:
"" In my audio world there is no right and wrong just what the individual prefers. ""
Then, you have your quality gradation level. Nothing wrong with that, that's the quality level that you like it. Fine with you, no problem at all and follow enjoying that quality level because at the end it's you who must be satisfied.
Human ears make very poor measuring equipment and you do not know what you are missing. Ignorance is bliss.
Sadly, our ears are all we got. To go against our ’lying ears’ in the name of science shows lack of conviction in the ability to form and voice an opinion.
@mijostynthe point here is, it is not for you to judge or pass comment on what should sound good to one individual as compared to another, everyone has their own preferences and tastes and let us be thankful for individuality.
Furthermore if the human ear cannot hear it, then who gives a stuff what they are missing as they will never know, so I am very happy to remain blissfully ignorant.
You are trying to tell people what is right and wrong in the audio world, a road from which you will not deviate and nor should others, in accordance with your own ideals, 'The Handmaid Tale' of audio springs to mind.
In my audio world there is no right and wrong just what the individual prefers.
@cleeds, The problem cleeds, is that without direct AB evaluation and perhaps even some pointing out and even with a decent system, most people will not be able to discern the problem even though it is easily measurable. In other words, They think it sounds good when in actuality it does not. All ears are not created equal. All systems are not created equal. What people think they hear is meaningless. You are absolutely right about the mount. Now throw in the geometry and the bearing. What you get is a tonearm disaster.
@alan60, Human ears make very poor measuring equipment and you do not know what you are missing. Ignorance is bliss.
@mijostynno buyer's remorse here. The above 2 contributors in their latest posts have hit the nail on the head. When you said the listening with your ears thing as picked up on by dogberry, I read it with incredulity. The only thing most fortunate people have to listen with is their ears, so I'll stick with that and just let the music play.
... In reality the issue is not " dogmatic theorists " but common sense founded in the Löfgren theory where he proved through scientific equation calculations ...
The dogamtic theorists are those who understand such geometry - such as you and @mijostyn- and then assume without listening what the net sonic affect will be of those arms that defy it.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m all for pivoted arms with "proper" offset and I have no plans to change from my SME V anytime soon, if ever. But I’ve been around audio too long to dismiss a product based solely on paper specs.
As for the Viv in particular, I have other issues with it, the greatest being its mount, not its underhung geometry. But I haven’t heard it so unlike some of the armchair theorists here, I can’t pass judgment on it.
What? It's AUDIBLE? Listen to yourself, if you care to believe in your ears. We are not allowed to believe in our ears, right? I'm quoting an authority here.
Dogberry, The distortion caused by the Viv are is easily measured and if your system is really good and you know what you are listening to is quite audible.
Most of my music listening is done in my shop in loud background fashion using mid Fi equipment I don't mind getting choked with dust. Yup, I like listening to the big system better but I am enjoying the music either way. I can't be in the listening position and make furnisher at the same time. It is also a very bad idea for an old person to get stuck in a seat.
@alan60, I am totally and completely comfortable in my position. My goal is to keep others from making the same mistake. You obviously are resistant to buyer's remorse. I would not buy a Viv arm like I would not buy a tricycle all terrain vehicle. The only difference is the Viv is not dangerous. But please do not feel bad. You are in very good company. In my youth I purchased some seriously stupid equipment like the Transcriptors Vestigial Tonearm, live and learn.
People have to get off this listening thing. You can not trust what other people hear because there is way too much variability in system and listening performance. Unless you are very well seasoned you can not even trust yourself. This is also not about music. We all love music or we would not be doing this. This is about system performance and design issues that make for a competent device. I am not going to beat around the bush when I see an obviously defective design. Because some people think it sounds good means absolutely nothing to me.
Raul, You wrote, "VIV comes with no off-set angle and with a TAE of around 10° and due that only exist one null point the TAE 90% of the time is truly nearr to those 10°..." That’s just not true at all. Only at the extremes of the arc the tonearm makes across the surface of the LP would the TAE reach its max error of 10 degrees. And please may I remind you for the second time that the "10 degrees" data point comes from the Yamaha engineer in reference to the Yamaha underhung tonearm mounted on their GT5000. For the Viv or any other underhung tonearm, the TAE would be zero at the single null point, which you can choose to place anywhere on the playing surface when you choose where to mount the tonearm. As the arm moves toward its single null point, TAE is gradually and pretty near linearly decreasing from its max at the outermost grooves to zero. Once the stylus moves past the null point, then TAE gradually increases to whatever its max value (now in negative degrees, because the angle is opposite in direction) at the run-out groove. I don’t recommend it, but I think the Viv comes in assorted lengths out to at least 11 inches and maybe to 14 inches, where the max TAE values would be way lower than 10 degrees. So if TAE is such a problem, one might consider the longer versions.
Earlier, I asked you to cite the reference you quoted in your post describing the logic of conventional tonearm geometry. Can you do that, please? If so, thanks a lot for your effort in doing that research.
Dogberry, TAE is not per se a "distortion". It’s a geometrical error; we know that distortion arises therefrom, but how much and of what quality and what consequence to our SQ, that is up for debate. For example, if we perseverate over TAE, then what can we also do about errors in zenith. A stylus that is not exactly symmetrically mounted on the cantilever can add up to +/-5% to TAE and can also eliminate null points, unless one accounts for it.
And as much as I publicly denigrate unbelievable tweaks and hacks, if something is not easily measured, our own ears have to decide. We remember, most of us, that ears are affected by psychoacoustics. And even if you can't measure the effect of a device, it can be shown to be effective in a double blind trial.
This tonearm pitches one source of distortion, tracking error, against another, anti-skating force. It should be relatively easy to come to some kind of consensus as to which of those factors hurts the sound we hear most. Should we not be testing that in a double blind fashion?
@rauliruegas sorry but I am not interested in nor do I want to understand all the theories. All that interests me is the music and how it sounds to my ears, and to me I enjoy what the Viv Labs brings to my system.
Dear @alan60 : I’m answering you and will try to help you a little to understand the whole TAE main subject in this VIV underhung tonearm.
First you as any one elsedo not needs to know the alignment equations and its meaning or from where those equations came. The main subject it’s not about " open mind " and certainly not about subjectivity alone. The whole main subject is full of objectivity to understand how the cartridge stylus tip rides the LP groove modulations with been main target to pick-up 100% of the recording information ( it’s no way with an analog cartridge/transducer to pick up 100%. ).
To understand all those first we have to understand in which " form/way " comes the groove LP modulations and for that we have to go to the recording proccess and inside it go to yhe cutting machine where the cutter head cuts the recording modulations in full tangential angle. From here and after 1-3 steps comes the LP you have in your hand.
What need we to pick up " 100% " of the groove modulations in the LP and where those groove modulations where cutted in tangential angle/way?
Easy: we need that the cartridge stylus tip rides those LP groove modulations in exactly the same way the cutter head did it and this is in : tangential way and from here came the LT tonearms that does not needs any offset andgle due that the cartridge stylus tip mounted in that kind/shape of tonearm is tangential one. In principle this is the best way to read th LP groove modulations: tangential way where does not exist TAE, well exist but is 0°.
In all pivoted tonearms, no matters what but the pivoted LT designs, the cartridge stylus tip can’t read/ride/track way due that been mounted in a pivoted tonearm always exist a deviation of that ideal 0° TAE.
Then what’s the best we can do to minimize to put at minimum all over the LP modulated surface and at the same time puts the developed distortions for that TAE ( tracking/tracing error ) to pick-up all the signal information that can stays nearer to what a tangential tonearm/cartridge can pick-up and nearer to the recording?
Every one has their own targets mine is to pick-up all TRUER information from those LP grooves with minimum developed distotions.
To achieve those we must ( there is no other alternative, a least for now. ) try to align the cartridge mounted in the pivoted tonearm with the minimum off-set angle ( 0°, idealy ) that permit to pick-up maximum TRUE grooves information at minimum developed tracing distortion.
What is nearest to 0°: 1° or 10°? ovbiously that 1° that puts me nearer to what in true is in the recording when 10° puts me not only away from the recording but at that angle or near that angle the pick up information is " untruer ". Here I’m not talking if we like what we listen/hear or not but I’m talking of what really happens down there.
Things are that in 1938 a gentleman Proff. Lófgren ( latter on other researchers/engineers. ) found out the solution to all those I posted here and his calculations ( that you do not needs to understand or to be a mathematrics guy. ) was and is the Standard in the analog industry and is knowed as Löfgren alignment where you only needs the rigth protractor to fix the off-set angle and overhang solution/solved by that Löfgren tonearm/cartridge alignment.
Normally and due that that kind of alignment solution have two null points normally in tonearms of over 10" ( maybe even lower EL ) the tracking error due to the off-set angle is mantained at around 1° +,- 0.3° 90% of the time.
That’s the way to start TRUER to the recording.
VIV comes with no off-set angle and with a TAE of around 10° and due that only exist one null point the TAE 90% of the time is truly nearr to those 10° and this means that the angle of the cartridge stylus tip is way off in the VIV tonearm and is if off how can pick up TRUER information from the groove modulations? just can’t do it.
The Löfgren Industry Standar is the way to go.
I know that you and other VIV owners are really happy and I’m not against you. What I’m telling you is try to understand of what you are listeing that’s really different of what the gentlemans that use Löfgren are listening.
Yes, our hobby is about MUSIC enjoyment but exist a quality gradation for that enjoyment and I know that @mijostyn as me likes to have that MUSIC enjoyment inside the higher quality gradation we/he can.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
